Oppose The individual pictures are available at a resolution of 1200 by 800 px, and there's no reason they should be any smaller than that when assembled into a poster. Other than that, looks good—I'll be happy to change to support once that's fixed.
Thegreenj 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Feeling rather stupid now... SupportThegreenj 02:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support-Very encyclopedic, very well done. ~Meldshal42 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As
Thegreenj mentioned, there is no reason for each image to be a much lower resolution than it previously was. This can easily be fixed. In which case, I will suppport.NauticaShades 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. It would seem I made a mistake. NauticaShades 22:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per thegreenj. I thought that was raised and understood when alvesgaspar nominated his composites.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 21:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment The resolution of the image is 2,440 × 2,480, which means full resolution of the individual images has been used (although it is possible that even larger resolution is available).
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Great quality and EV.
Forgot to sign the above...
¢rassic! (
talk) 20:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support quality of some of the individual images could be a little higher, but the illustrative value trumps that. Well done.--
Svetovid (
talk) 10:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support as per above. Thinking before speaking is handy. ;-)
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 14:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
You're so much smarter than the rest of us Diliff. We really admire you. You've never made a single mistake in your whole life, and I'm sure it's only out of modesty that no major award has gone your way yet. The thing that most impresses me is how you always know exactly when no further commentary is needed, and refrain from such unnecessary verbal drivel. Deeply impressed. :)
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 21:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
You chose to ignore that it was a light-hearted joke. They help lift this process beyond mindless bureaucratic drivel. We're humans. We all make mistakes, but there should be nothing wrong with poking fun at them at times.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Don't worry. I took your comment for what it was: jest. ;) NauticaShades 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support very nice although I'd prefer the numbering to be visible at the size it's used in articles.
Guest9999 (
talk) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Very encyclopedic. An excellent addition to Wikipedia.
Purple Is Pretty (
talk) 03:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Marvellous idea and well created -
Peripitus(Talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)reply